Dear colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on Friday, March 21, concerning the actions allegedly taken by officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the hon. member for St. Albert for their comments in this matter.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley claimed that on the morning of March 21 officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration refused to allow her to attend a briefing on changes to the immigration investor program. The hon. member argued that, by making this information available to the media before members of Parliament, the department acted in a way which constituted a contempt of Parliament as well as a breach of her parliamentary privileges.

I have reviewed the facts surrounding the incident, and after further consultations, my understanding of the matter is as follows: a notice was issued to the media by the office of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announcing that the minister would be holding a press conference regarding the immigrant investor program in the National Press Gallery theatre at 10.15 a.m. on Friday, March 21. The notice further specified that the press conference would be preceded by a technical briefing by departmental officials at 9 a.m.

It was also confirmed to me that the National Press Gallery applies certain restrictions on the number of people permitted to attend a press conference in the theatre. Yet no such restrictions exist for briefings which, I am told, are frequently held in the theatre by government departments. Finally, the Chair was informed that the briefing in question was "off the record," which meant that it would not be televised in the closed circuit system of the House of Commons and, consequently, could not be viewed by members of Parliament.

In the case which is presently before us, the Chair must address two issues. I will first deal with the issue of whether or not there has been a breach of privilege insofar as the member was denied access to information by departmental officials. I will then examine the claim that the actions of the department constituted a contempt of Parliament.

On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the media had been given information by the government concerning financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser ruled page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege. He also reminded the House that:

Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House.

On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied access to the information. Speaker Fraser's ruling which can be found at page 11788 of the Debates , stated that this was not a prima facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament.

In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after question period.

On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser. In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said:

"Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or the dignity of the House of Commons".

Does the fact that the media was given information before it was going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated:

The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.

It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was, after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House, making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the authority and dignity of the House.

For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima facie case of privilege.

The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley may have a valid grievance which she may wish to pursue elsewhere; however, procedurally the matter has been settled in that it does not amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege, nor does it constitute a contempt of Parliament.

I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the Chair.

The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to a justice bill. It is nice to see a plethora of justice bills coming in here at the last minute because of the cacophony of noise that has been raised out in the field. That is for the benefit of the minister who, I am sure, is attempting now to fix some of the things that somehow slipped through in his department with loopholes that have had some very negative results.

I think the minister knows about those and is aware that there has been a botch-up in the drafting. We brought in a couple of amendments to try to fix some bills last week after we were well into the process. Somebody in the department was not doing the work and we have been trying to fix things up.

We are, as we get closer to the election, trying to deal with issues such as victims rights. That has suddenly become a priority item. We are trying to deal with fixing the conditional sentencing provisions of some bills now. We have always realized that conditional sentencing should not be an option for a judge who is considering a serious violent offence. It is still an option, which is unfortunate.

However, the minister is bringing in all these bills: C-17 now, C-27 likely on Monday, debating the victims bill of rights in committee this week, and dealing with all the issues that have been on the table for two or three years. Finally, on the cusp of the election, the epiphany has struck. The conversion is a bit on the road, not of Damascus, but perhaps to the next election. I think we

are going to see quite a bit of this discussion about the justice system, how to fix it, what should it entail and so on.

We have been trying to emphasize in these debates on the justice system the need for some guiding principles. Whether it is called the charter of rights for victims, it should be a guiding set of principles that would direct judges, parole boards, people drafting legislation, on what should be considered as they draft legislation or directives for their employees. The justice system should make sure that victims have the standing they require and make sure they do not fall through the cracks.

In my riding a lady beaten unconsciousness and her body was further beaten for a couple of hours. It was actually the noise of the beating that got the police involved. Thankfully the woman survived. Her eyes were swollen shut for a couple of weeks. She was black and blue. It was a wonder she survived.

The fellow was charged with attempted murder but then charge was dropped because it is so difficult to prove. It was a sad case. The guy got off with nine months in jail.

The woman felt her rights had been compromised. I sent a letter to the minister about the need to do something about the part of the code dealing with attempted murder. I also wrote to the attorney general of British Columbia who agreed with me and asked to have the issue put on the agenda of the joint meeting between the attorneys general and the minister to see if there was some way the charge of attempted murder can be proven. It almost never successfully prosecuted. It is very disturbing.

This lady came to see me in my office pointing out that something needed to be done. The guy got nine months in jail for beating on an unconscious body. What tipped off the police was the blood stains on the ceilings and walls when they got to the door. That is how much he beat on her. Attempted murder could not be proven even though he used every conceivable object to beat her.

I raise that case because it is a horrible one. I had to deal with it. The guy was sent to prison and a red tag was put on his file saying that the victim should know where he is at all times. I guess the red sticker fell off the file and the guy was transferred to a minimum security prison 20 miles from the lady's home in the Chilliwack Valley in my riding. It is about a three or four hour walk to the lady's home from that jail. She found out about it only because a guard tipped her off. She immediately went into hiding. There are no fences. It is a minimum security institution, not a federal institution, that I am talking about.

The woman has been in hiding, has changed her name and done everything she could to try to protect herself. She says that every time she asks for assurances from the justice system that the man will not have access to her, or at least she will know where he is incarcerated, she is assured it will happen and then it does not happen. He phones her from jail.

The woman needs some protection. When we talk about the guiding principle of protecting the rights of the victims that is what we are talking about. She needs that assurance. She should not have to come to see me. She should know that her rights are being protected so that she is not endangered and not in fear.

She is in absolute, hopeless fear for her life. I need to assure her that we are working on it and that we will push forward with some sort of bill of rights for victims which tells them that we more worried about them than anything else and they do not have to live in fear. When she comes to me for that assurance and I cannot give it to her she is very discouraged.

Another case which was raised in question period in the last while was again in my area, in Abbotsford. The Ursel case has been well thrashed out here. It was about someone who was abused sexually and the justice system did not seem to provide a straight punishment clause for that guy. We are not worried about rehabilitation here. We want that guy punished and society protected. It did not happen in that case.

The justice minister should know there are approximately 10,000 signatures of people who are upset about that rapist and are now lobbying day and night with petitions and letters to editors and so on trying to have that judge removed from the bench. Now they are attacking our justice system. That again is a very negative trend. We need to deal with issues that protect our judges. We have to give them the tools and restrict them from using the freedom they have been given to so misjudge a case that the whole justice system has fallen into disrepute. I like to think I could protect our judges, leave them with their autonomy and not get into that fray.

What do I say? That lady has been in my office too. She is distributing the petition. She has a very active group of people. Thousands and thousands of people have signed the petition saying that the judge has to go. That is not the right way to do it. We do not want to start petitioning against judges and kicking this one out because we did not like his ruling. The judge needs his autonomy. We cannot give him the degree of freedom we have under conditional sentencing which allows him to do that.

There is another case in the Peace River area. A fellow threatened to kill his wife. He was estranged from her. They had lived common law for some time and had a couple of children. They separated. He moved away, got together with another lady and had some more children. They were well separated.

He was not paying his child support and there was some acrimony about that. Finally he got disgusted and drove 300 or 400 kilometres to her home. He broke down her door, raped her, beat her and left her unconscious on the floor in her kitchen. Of course they caught him. They knew who had done it because they had a history of squabbles. The judge ruled under conditional sentencing-and Bill C-41 gave him the right-no time in jail for that crime because he might miss a child support payment.

What are we supposed to say to that? What would the parliamentary secretary have me tell the woman? The man drove 300 miles with malice aforethought to kick in her door, rape her, beat her and leave her on the kitchen floor. Then the judge said that if he put him in jail he would miss child support payments. He was given no time in jail, a conditional release. There is something wrong with a system that does not put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the guy who is making child support payments. There is something wrong in our system that it does not provide for some sort of protection, a victims bill of rights or something to allow people to know that when some heinous violent sexual assault happens they can be sure minimum time will be served.

What about community protection? That lady is part of the community. The guy beat her, raped her and left. He is 300 kilometres away, exactly where he was the night he got drunk and did it to her the last time.

What are we supposed to say? I say the justice system needs to give a guiding set of principles to the whole mishmash of the justice system, whether it is the code, the legislation, the regulations, the parole board or whatever. The guiding principle should be that the rights of the victim have to be protected. It is not happening yet. It has been talked about. I am tantalized by the talk just before the election, but I have not seen it in 3.5 years. It has not received the emphasis we need. We will be on the campaign trail soon. It will be raised at those meetings.